One could open an issue referencing soap binding 5.2.1 claiming that the
spec permits use of alternative addresses but fails to provide a method
for their identification.
Cr33 is phrased relative to the wsdl marker and its
optional/prohibited/required wording which seems to not well support
5.2.1
Is the behavior of the underlying transport determined by the form and
content of the address or by the wsdl marker or policy assertion?
Is the addressing wsdl or policy to affect the behavior of the
underlying transport? How will it do this?
How will the addressing soap binding work with addresses that mean anon
but are not anon? Where is it written?
Are conformant implementations required to support all forms of anon
other than wsa:anon or at least the ability to recognize them as anon?
-bob
________________________________
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 1:31 PM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Katy Warr; Bob Freund; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06
teleconference
Marc Goodner wrote:
David, I think there is another option. If the jury finds guilty on the
first charge I don't think 1.a or 1.b in your list below would need to
be pursued. We could move straight into 1.c to make the wsaw:Anon marker
policy friendly.
And then we can do 3? Great!
Except ...
1a is not about anonymous per se and doesn't have much at all to do with
the first charge. It's about the more general question of "If I can
accept (or cannot accept) a particular kind of URI as, say, ReplyTo",
how do I say that? The URI in question might be WSA Anon (in which case
we're already special-cased), or it might be RMAnon (the original driver
for CR33), but it might just as well be mailto:* or http to certain
domains, or whatever.
It's exactly because this is not about anon per se that I would like to
see it separated from CR33 and any discussion of back-channels.
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:05 AM
To: Katy Warr
Cc: bob@freunds.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06
teleconference
Katy,
I continue to be concerned that (1) below is a false dichotomy, as there
are two largely separate issues involved.
One issue is whether there should be some sort of extension point -- not
necessarily the one I proposed -- for describing what sort of addresses
are and are not acceptable beyond the ones WSA defines (i.e., anon and
none). This is larger than WS-RX, though WS-RX is of course a driving
use case, and independent of the notion of "back-channel" or
"anonymous". >From the mailing list, there appears to be at least some
support for opening this issue, including (IIUC) the person who filed
CR33. It is also in line with the findings of the async task force.
The other issue is whether we should define (or allude to, or allow
others to define, or mention but leave undefined ...) some notion of
"back-channel" beyond what we say in the SOAP binding about the anon
address. If so, there is the separate issue of how to define this. My
impression, perhaps incorrect, is that this proposal grew out of a
fairly tactical fix to the language in the WSDL binding, though one
could also argue that the notion of "back-channel" would be generally
useful.
I'm much more concerned about the first issue than the second. I would
go along with a proposal for the second, as long as it is well-defined.
I have, of course, expressed significant concern as to whether the
current such proposal is well-defined.
Framing the question as a choice between these two proposals for largely
distinct questions would tend to imply that accepting one means
rejecting the other, particularly given the length of time this whole
thing has dragged on and the universal desire to get on with it. This
is why I would strongly prefer to see the issues split. My expectation
-- and Lord knows I could be wrong -- is that we could get to a yes/no
decision on these separate issues more quickly, as the discussion would
be more focused.
Here is a more formal presentation of what I've already proposed in
other messages:
1. Close CR 33 with no action.
2. Go to the pub.
Oops ... sorry ... what I meant was
1. Close CR 33 with no action, and concomitantly:
a. Open an issue about a general extension point for
describing what addresses are/are not allowed. Use my previous proposal
as a strawman.
b. Open an issue about a general definition of
"back-channel", with Anish & Paco's current proposal as a strawman.
FWIW, I would support a version along the lines of what Anish mentioned,
tying "back-channel" to the SOAP request-response MEP.
c. Open an issue about making our WSDL markings more
policy-friendly. I don't have a proposal here, as it's outside my
comfort zone, but I believe others feel strongly enough about it to
drive it.
2. Bash the above issues to death
3. Go to the pub.
I would propose covering these in the order given (except that (3) could
perhaps be interspersed), as the resolution of (a) might possibly shed
some light on (b), and (c) can probably be done better once the other
two are in place.
Katy Warr wrote:
Hi Bob
We have discussed CR33 for such a long time now - we must be in a
position to make a decision.
I propose that we formally vote in today's meeting in order to reach
resolution.
I suggest the following staged approach:
1) (Assuming not close-with-no-action) Which proposal of those on table
(Paco's/Anish's vs DavidHull's)? Summarise proposals. Take a vote.
2) Does anyone need the solution to be reflected in WSDL, or will policy
solution suffice? Take a vote.
3) Iron out details such as proposal syntax/names. Namespace
implications.
Best regards
Katy
"Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com> <mailto:bob@freunds.com>
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
04/11/2006 17:54
To
"Mark Little" <mark.little@jboss.com> <mailto:mark.little@jboss.com>
cc
"[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
<mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 teleconference
More like Spencer Tracy (Inherit the wind)
-bob
________________________________
From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:45 AM
To: Bob Freund
Cc: [WS-A]
Subject: Re: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06
teleconference
Are you looking for a Henry Fonda person (12 Angry Men) ;-)?
Mark.
On 31 Oct 2006, at 23:52, Bob Freund wrote:
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury
All of the testimony has been given, and the evidence provided for your
inspection. The time has come to conclude your deliberations.
You will be asked to decide the following questions with regard to the
charges raised against WS-Addressing:
First Charge:
One count of flirting with anonymous addresses of unknown character
without any intention of establishing a meaningful relationship.
Soap binding 5.2.1 invites other anonymous addresses.
"Note that other specifications MAY define special URIs that have other
behaviors (similar to the anonymous URI)."
If the Jury finds that the WG didn't really mean it, then the spec shall
be found guilty of this charge.
If found guilty of this charge, then the WG shall issue an errata
removing the flirtatious prose and cr33 shall be closed with no action.
If found innocent, then the WG is sentenced to accommodate such
anonymous addresses without prejudice and to modify the WSDL binding and
the policy assertions accordingly.
How do you find?
Second Charge:
Core and Soap binding are inconsistent: The core spec is section 3.2.1
says that anonymous is a recognizable uri detectable with simple string
comparison for "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous
<http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous> ". If the Jury returns
a guilty verdict to the first charge, then this charge is moot once the
sentence has been served. If the Jury returns an innocent verdict to
the first charge, and a guilty verdict to the second charge, then the WG
shall be sentenced to decide how to remove this inconsistency.
How do you find?
Third charge:
One count of not being policy friendly
Content in the element is not well matched with the policy framework
that is forming into a specification.
If found guilty, the mandatory sentence is that all markers are to be
meaningful by their name alone which touches the WSDL binding as well as
the policy assertion
How do you find?
Thanks
-bob